From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateColumbia University is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleColumbia University has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2004 Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2008 Good article nomineeNot listed
April 12, 2011 Good article nomineeNot listed
April 19, 2011 Good article nomineeListed
May 15, 2021 Peer reviewReviewed
May 16, 2021 Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 8, 2021 Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Note about media caption under subheading 1.1 "18th Century" (Columbia University ➔ 1. History ➔ 1.1 18th Century)

In the caption for the last image within this subsection, "The 1797 Taylor Map of New York City...", there is an minor inconsistency between the image and the caption (if one would consider it an inconsistency). The caption specifically states that the map is "showing 'The College' at its Park Place (then Robinson Street) location".

As the caption uses quotes around "The College", I am assuming that it is treating the phrase as an excerpt from the image, and is supposed to match with text in the image. However, in the image of the map, Columbia University is actually denoted by "The Colledge". Wondering if this is important enough to copyedit? Kurisupi.dbf ( talk) 23:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It's important to maintain accuracy and consistency in Wikipedia captions. In this case, the difference between "The College" in the caption and "The Colledge" in the image may indeed be considered a minor inconsistency. To ensure accuracy, it would be a good idea to update the caption to match the exact wording used in the image, which is "The Colledge."
Making this adjustment will help ensure that the caption accurately reflects the content of the image, and it aligns with Wikipedia's standards for precision and consistency. If you believe this edit is warranted, please go ahead and make the change. If you have any further questions or need assistance with the editing process, feel free to ask. 207.96.13.213 ( talk) 18:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi,
In that case, I will make an edit. Thank you! Kurisupi.dbf ( talk) 04:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

I suggest that you link the columbia blue text in the information with the corresponding wikipedia page /info/en/?search=Columbia_blue Studentoftheworld123 ( talk) 09:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: this is part of the Template:College color list. M.Bitton ( talk) 12:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Please change Academy Award Winners to 34

Raney Aronson-Rath (JRN’95) - Academy Award-winning producer, 20 Days in Mariupol Tazz9999 ( talk) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Type

Hi @ ElKevbo: could you explain what your objection is to this version? It retains the links that you feel are important while improving accessibility for users. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I disagree that it improves accessibility; readers are perfectly able to distinguish between two links. And it unnecessarily breaks apart the phrase "research university," leaving the ambiguous adjective "research" standing on its own without sufficient context. ElKevbo ( talk) 01:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
readers are perfectly able to distinguish between two links How? If neither link has been clicked the phrase appears identical to a single link. And the adjective does not stand alone - it remains tied to the label of type. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Do spaces not appear on your device...? ElKevbo ( talk) 13:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There are spaces in Research university, and yet it is a single link. There are spaces in Research university, and it is two links. If none of those links are previously visited, both of those look the same to a reader. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry but I don't understand your objection or concern. ElKevbo ( talk) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As noted, the version you've reverted to presents an accessibility concern because a reader cannot readily see that there is more than one link, and conflicts with MOS:SOB. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry but I disagree that this an egregious accessibility concern that requires us to replace the meaningful and extremely common phrase "research university" with the vague adjective "research."
You're welcome to seek input from other editors. But you may want to keep in mind that this exact same scenario is repeated in hundreds and perhaps thousands of other articles so focusing only on this one article is not advised. WT:UNI is where a few other editors who focus on colleges and universities hang out if you'd like to get their input. ElKevbo ( talk) 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Sounds like that objection can be resolved by simply changing the second link to not be piped. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No, it's unnecessary to remove such an important link. ElKevbo ( talk) 02:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not suggesting removing any links, just unpiping, like so:
That resolves your objection and the accessibility/MOS issue. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am not amenable to that proposal - it looks terrible and doesn't make sense grammatically. ElKevbo ( talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

MOS:SOB is qualified by When possible. Blue seas are never desirable, but I'd argue that the type parameter of university infoboxes is one place they're inevitable, since having appropriate links/grammar takes precedence. I also concur with ElKevbo that this should be discussed more centrally at the project (or infobox) talk page given that it'd have widespread applicability. Sdkb  talk 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually, Sdkb, it's very very possible to avoid - all that would be needed is, if it's decided that multiple types should be listed, to list them rather than conjoining them. I appreciate Elkevbo doesn't care for the look of that, but accessibility trumps aesthetics, and site guidelines trump projects/templates. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with ElKevbo's point about detachment as well, though. "Private" is an incomplete thought on its own. When we say Private research university, the "university" can apply to both, but if we broke them apart with a horizontal list, we'd need to say
  • Private university
  • Research university
, which would be redundant.
And no guidelines are being violated because SOB is deliberately phrased so as to not be absolute. Sdkb  talk 01:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Private" on its own is very commonly used for this parameter, as there's nothing incomplete about "Type: Private" as a fact-value pair; that's what this article used for years. The same piping could be applied to the second entry, for the same reason. But it is appropriate to present multiple entries as a list. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It's not common in articles about US colleges and universities - we began changing it a few years ago. ElKevbo ( talk) 02:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Why? Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not going to retype everything we've already discussed. We disagree on this and I'm not willing to compromise. Sorry. I think that you need to drop this or get other editors to weigh in, perhaps through an RfC. ElKevbo ( talk) 03:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see where you've already discussed why "we began changing it a few years ago". Was there an RfC or similar discussion underlying that decision? If no, then it can simply be changed back. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It was several years ago so I don't recall where or if there was an explicit discussion. It's in alignment with the documentation for the "Type" parameter of the template - but I don't remember if that was also change at that time, already said that we should do this, or was edited later. Incidentally, this was added to the article in July of 2021 and I wasn't even the editor who did that (it was an unregistered editor).
Regardless, you can't simply "change back" an edit that has been in this article for several years, is consistent with thousands of other articles, is aligned with the documentation for the template, and is contested in good-faith by another editor. It's on you to develop a consensus to support your proposed change to content that has been stable for nearly three years. ElKevbo ( talk) 11:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree a central discussion is needed given the scale of the changes that have been made, and in the interim further implementation and reverting on this issue should be avoided. I'll reinstate the other changes per the below but leave the type for the moment. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Fixing the sea of blue would help alot with accessibility. This is generally a problem with these universities and colleges...even Harvard is tagged with these problems when it should be an FA article. Moxy🍁 01:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Lead

@ ElKevbo: regarding your edit summary here, I'd encourage you to review the pages you linked. Your revert lacks rationale and introduces multiple problems, including a broken image and an overlong lead. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree that the lede is too long. But you don't have the right to edit war with others and impose your preferred version of this article without discussion. I also agree with OneMoreByte that it's problematic to selectively edit the lede of only a handful of articles when there are many others that should be treated similarly.
With that said, I've been thinking for a while now that we should open a discussion at WT:UNI, perhaps as preliminary discussion before a formal RfC, about the lists of alumni and faculty awards and accomplishments that have been added to the ledes of articles about US colleges and universities. My primary concerns are that they're (a) not neutral as they're invariably just positive, (b) overly detailed and lengthy, and (c) difficult to keep up-to-date. I'd prefer if we could develop a project-wide consensus to omit this information. What do you think? ElKevbo ( talk) 11:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Elkevbo and Nikkimaria -
I thank both of you for teaching me through this process about how to be a better Wikipedia editor. We are all trying to help the world learn more in a quality way .
agree with the idea that Wiki editors should agree upon a universal standard. I am the proverbial "Switzerland" with respect to result. I just do not think that standard should be applied haphazardly.
With respect to any university or college, be they Ivy League or no league (collectively, "School"), I believe that whether a summary of accomplishments of School's alumni, faculty, and trustees (collectively "People") should
(1) be included in the lede
OR
(2) not be included in the lede
should be applied "uniformly consistent with Wikipedia SOL. Schools should not be treated differently. I defer to you as how to come to consensus. Thank you helping the Wiki and the world. OneMoreByte ( talk) 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I am also ok with Nikkimaria continuing her deleting the Schools Ledes as that will encourage more Wikipedia editors who might be blindsided to understand the issue. Better we hear from the Editors of the HYP crowd (Harvard Yale Princeton) now and not after consensus has been reached as it will open it up again to new round. Hence, Nikkimaria should continue to winnow the edits of all the Ivies and others with relatively long summary of People until consensus is reached. OneMoreByte ( talk) 20:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, among other policies and practices, strongly argue in favor of holding a discussion before continuing to engage in edits that are contested by good-faith editors. Consensus may be in favor of these edits but that needs to be established. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Those are both essays, not requirements; so far no PAG-based arguments have been put forward supportive of the revert, and given the discussion here I'd encourage you to reverse yourself. I do agree though that a formal RfC might be helpful regarding other pages with similar issues. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Elkevbo in comment made [ ( talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) ] has persuaded me that WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, and Wikipedia SOP favor holding a discussion BEFORE Nikkimaria deletes the Summary of People paragraphs in Ledes of Ivie and other Schools (as I defined School above in this chain). I was wrong to ask Nikkimaria to delete all the other Summary of People paragraphs in all other Ledes. That being said since University of Pennsylvania is now the only School (out of tens of peer Schools to not have this Summary of People paragraph in its Lede I will add back in what was deleted by someone not part of this talk and place in my reason that such person go to this Talk to understand that we are looking to find Consensus to learn if the "Wiki" powers that be are in favor of these edits. I thank ElKevbo ( talk) 22:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) and Nikkimaria for both helping me become a more sophisticated Wikipedia editor. OneMoreByte ( talk) 04:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi OneMoreByte, for your knowledge, the STATUSQUO and BRD pages are opinion essays; such pages do not hold the same weight as policies and guidelines, which are more like the WikiRules you are referencing. As mentioned, it does not appear that these policies and guidelines support the restoration. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
i know I do not know, which is why we wait for consensus I believe that it does not make sense to have one School be judged differently than dozens of its peers.
Though I agree with Elkevbo position I can not stop you from deleting the Summary of People paragraphs from Ledes of Harvard Yale and Princeton ("HYP") and other similar Schools. If you do so delete you will get a large number of editors to write in this talk page. I look forward to seeing the process unfold. I have to always remind myself that we are all just volunteering to help spread accurate information consistent with Wikipedia SOP and other rules. OneMoreByte ( talk) 04:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ ElKevbo: Could you clarify why specifically you are continuing to revert here? In your post above you agreed that the lead is too long and alumni lists presented neutrality problems, and as far as I know no consensus has formed for the inclusion of the disputed material. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I object to you using the guise of simply removing or trimming the paragraph about alumni to make all kinds of other changes unrelated to that purpose. In particular, you have once again tried to remove the critical phrase "research university" from the lede and that's pretty damned underhanded given the discussion above.
I strongly recommend that you proceed much more slowly and with transparency given that your edits in this article have already proven to be very controversial with multiple editors. ElKevbo ( talk) 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi ElKevbo, other than moving (not removing) that phrase, do you have any other specific objections? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes:
  • Why would we unlink the state in the relevant infobox parameter?
  • I have previously tried to remove "Ivy League" from the lede of articles and this has been opposed. So the current consensus appears to be that it's critical information that must be in the lede sentence. I disagree with that consensus and I would hope that it could be successfully challenged with a new consensus to remove it from all eight articles. But that should be done transparently with editors given an opportunity to make their opinion known, not done without notice using an edit summary that doesn't even mention the change.
Given how many other articles also have lists of alumni and faculty accomplishments in the lede, I again strongly recommend that you open an explicit discussion before removing that information from the lede of this article. As previously mentioned, I would support such a recommendation. But the number of articles in which this is done and the length of time that it has been in several of those articles demonstrates some level of implicit consensus. ElKevbo ( talk) 01:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Similar to research university, this phrase remained in the lead after the edit.
Anything else? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As NebY said, consensus was not reached in that discussion. For example, my question was never answered and my opinion was contingent on the answer to that question. ElKevbo ( talk) 02:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
AFAICT NebY said they disagreed with the proposal but did not dispute that consensus was reached, or your own acknowledgement that local practice cannot override projectwide guidelines. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Nikkimaria - You have way more experience than me and I acknowledge I don't know. My goal is merely to treat Schools uniformly which is why I suggested you delete all the Ledes from all Schools (at least ALL Ivy League Schools.). Elkevbo and I agree with you that it may make sense to delete from all 8. However, per arguments made by ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) I now believe that in light of the 100a (perhaps 1000s) of other articles that have lists of alumni and faculty accomplishments in the lede, we should open what elkevbo wrote was "... a
an explicit discussion before removing that information from the lede of this articl" If we stop deheting this info we may likely precipitate tens of edit wars. Look how quickly your edits of Columbia and Brown were reverted. I wanted either non or all 8 Ivy schools to have their Summary of Notable People in Ledes to be deleted.
N OneMoreByte ( talk) 04:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

Take out the unofficially people's university for Palestine, it is not a real thing MegaSportsFan ( talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done — Please provide a source saying it is not a real thing. The current sources for it are articles from the Washington Examiner and Columbia Daily Spectator. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"Unofficially renamed"

The statement that "students" (who or how is not specified) "unofficially renamed" Columbia University is not supported by reliable sources.

Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, Twitter is not a reliable source.

The opinion piece in the Washington Examiner says, "an autonomous tent city has erupted, dubbed 'The People’s University for Palestine', not that students had "unofficially renamed" the school.

The Columbia Spectator photo essay says, "students at the encampment crafted a sign reading 'Welcome to the People’s University for Palestine'", not that students had "unofficially renamed" the school.

Before this dubious statement is added to the article, reliable sources and sufficient context and explanation must be included. Bsherr ( talk) 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have reworded it as it does not have RS saying “renamed”. However, the info is sourced by RS that it is used by students on campus, including mention by the student-run newspaper. So inclusion can be assumed, but not “renamed”. I agree on that aspect. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Instead of adding the text in question again, how about you make your proposals here on this talk page? Can you cite a reliable source that supports your contention that students are calling the school this? As I point out above, the articles you previously cited only say this is the name of the encampment or is printed on a banner. -- Bsherr ( talk) 17:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Washington Examiner, your own quote states it in words. Therefore, per WP:ONUS, you need to find a source countering it. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) @ Bsherr: — I removed “renamed”, so what exactly are you challenging? Following BRD, the “Bold” was addition of rename, “Revert” was your removal, “discussion” was agreement between editors (myself and you) that the sources do not say “rename”. The fix was removing it said rename. Since you have now removed it, please directly state what exactly you are challenging, as you have yet to actually explain the new issue with the text. (This is an edit conflict text I was adding during your reply.) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Now, it has exact wording sourced by RS. The Washington Examiner directly states the “camp” / protest area is dubbed (i.e. named) that. Therefore, I changed the text to say that the camp and protest is that per students name. That is per RS. You can discuss this further if you wish to remove it, but you either (1) need to explain how the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source regarding Columbia University or (2) start a true discussion to remove it (it being the sentence about protests at the university along with the dubbed name for the “camp”) as it is sourced based on WP:RS. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Camp name

Editors are in dispute about whether the ongoing protests ate Columbia University should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

This topic has been edit warred over, and RS including articles from the Washington Examiner and Columbia Daily Spectator, citing the protests have been removed and challenged.

I propose adding the following sentence (a single sentence), which is directly sourced by reliable secondary sources: 

 “In April 2024, amid protests of 
Israel–Hamas war, students at Columbia University started calling the protest camp “The People’s University for Palestine”.
[1]
[2]
[3]

References

  1. ^ "The students have now renamed @Columbia University. The new name is: "The People's University for Palestine"" (Post on 𝕏). 𝕏 (Formerly Twitter). New York City: Visegrád 24. 21 April 2024. Archived from the original on 22 April 2024. Retrieved 22 April 2024.
  2. ^ "At Columbia and beyond, Jews must not hide or apologize". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 22 April 2024.
  3. ^ Goldstein, Judy (22 April 2024). "In Focus: Day four in the 'Gaza Solidarity Encampment' at the 'People's University'" ( News article). Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved 22 April 2024.

To reiterate, mention of the protests in general have been challenged by editors and there is an ongoing edit war pertaining whether or not the protests themselves are notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. This is a decent compromise as it is a single sentence regarding the protests, which are sourced by RS. Per the Washington Examiner, “And, because no modern leftist cause is complete without a few days of outdoor camping, an autonomous tent city has erupted, dubbed “The People’s University for Palestine”, which is the source for the camp/tent area being called that term, which is also seen in the Columbia Daily Spectator article (Columbia Universities own newspaper) and the post by Visegrád 24. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

As a P.S. note, the editor in complete challenge to any mention of the protests in the article is Bsherr, who has directly requested a consensus about whether or not they are notable for inclusion on the article. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The paragraph as you propose it would read: "In 2010, the School of International and Public Affairs, which was previously a part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, became an independent faculty. In April 2024, amid protests of Israel–Hamas war, students at Columbia University started calling the protest camp "The People’s University for Palestine"." The insertion is confusing because context is clearly missing: What protest camp? Which students? The paragraph does not say. Again, you need reliable sources. The Washington Examiner opinion piece is not a reliable source, for the reasons set forth at WP:RSEDITORIAL. If you are able to identify reliable sources, the better place may be in Columbia University#Controversies 2, a section already about this subject. -- Bsherr ( talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It can be added there. And I dispute your reasoning that the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source for information. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The reliability of The Washington Examiner has no consensus per WP:RSP. If we do include a mention of the current turmoil on campus, the arrests are the far more notable aspect (per the focus of coverage in reliable sources), so that is what we'd want to mention. The addition of a "controversies" section is a very bad idea per WP:CRITSECTION — any mention would go at the end of the history section. Sdkb  talk 18:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I personally make no issue of the reliability of the Washington Examiner. Rather, the issue is that this is an opinion piece. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WeatherWriter, could you explain why you think this does not apply here? If this is a notable, credible statement, can you not come up with a reliable source? -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that the entire controversies section should be integrated into the history section. -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Just flagging that I made mention of the protests in the student life section earlier today, i think before this edit war. Sawitontwitter ( talk) 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
All three editors currently in this discussion may qualify as WP:INVOLVED editors, as all three editors have commented in some fashion on my talk page in an off-article talk page discussion. A “third-party” editor commenting would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:INVOLVED is about administrators refraining from taking administrative action in discussions in which they are involved as an editor. I am not an administrator. But I welcome any other opinions. -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Whoops, I though “WP:INVOLVED” linked to about involved-editors and something with WP:Third opinion, not admins. My bad. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerical note, Bsherr combined sections and I am breaking out sections again for the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherWriter ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if this dispute is still active but I agree that the sources don't come anywhere close to justify including this information in the lede of this article. I don't think they even justify including it in the body of the article.
And I agree that the Washington Examiner appears to be a very low quality source that probably doesn't meet our reliability standards. ElKevbo ( talk) 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Controversies section

While we are on the subject, there seems to be a breadth problem in the recently added controversies section. Recent student protests have involved labor relations, Iran, private prisons, tuition, etc., not just the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the 2024 pro-Palestinian demonstration is the only subject mentioned. How do we resolve this? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I can try to build out this section if appropriate. This recent conflict was covered my most major U.S. media outelts and caught my attention. Sawitontwitter ( talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Very bad idea. Bsherr's comment is exactly why we avoid criticism sections — they are a magnet for recentist cruft. The appropriate course of action is to merge anything sufficiently due into the history section and then remove the controversies section, not to try to build out the controversies section further. Past controversies like the 1968 arrests are already covered there in a roughly appropriate level of detail. Sdkb  talk 21:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll avoid edits for a few days to see how situation unfolds and whether it warrants further coverage. If not, can delete criticisms section and fold into history section.
Story is being covered on most major news outlets in America and New York Times is currently providing live updates from on campus. I think it's also possible this gets its own subhead, and can rename the curent "Controversies" one Sawitontwitter ( talk) 00:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a reason not to put it in the currently-one-sentence 21st century subsection? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If you think that's best, go for it. Sawitontwitter ( talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Well said, Sdkb. These incidents are part of the university's history and should be placed into proper historical context. For the current situation, it certainly seems that a congressional hearing and mass demonstrations that include arrests and the partial shutdown of the campus warrant a brief discussion in the history section. ElKevbo ( talk) 00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The problem is one of balance. For example, Student activism at Columbia University#Ahmadinejad speech controversy received exponentially more coverage in reliable sources, yet isn't mentioned at all. Which is understandable, because, if one were to rank the events in Columbia's history, both of these events would be of low significance relative to what is already covered. So how do we resolve it? -- Bsherr ( talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Then that should probably also be (very briefly) mentioned in the article, too. ElKevbo ( talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that it reflects a problematic bias toward recent events. This section giving a broad encyclopedic treatment of three centuries of history now ends with "the university canceled classes on Monday, April 22." That degree of detail is very inconsistent with the rest of the section. -- Bsherr ( talk) 13:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Then the rest of the section needs to be improved. This article should not be solely about positive events and good news about the university. If there are other notable negative events then they should be included, too. I acknowledge that it's challenging to keep the history section in this article both reasonably short and appropriately comprehensive but it appears that we've struck a very poor balance by omitting critical information that should be included. ElKevbo ( talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Columbia_University&oldid=1220468675"